Post on 03-Jun-2018
transcript
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
1/85
Results
4. RESULTS
4.1. Mycological examination of meat and milk and their
products:
4.1.1. Mycological examination of meat and meat products:
4.1.1.1 Total mould count (TMC) of the examined samples
As shown in Table (2) and Fig. (2), it was noticed that the highest
total mould count (TMC) was obtained from the sausage samples,followed b hawawchi samples, luncheon and minced meat! whereas the
fro"en meat samples ielded the lowest count of mould. TMC in sausage
samples, ranged from 2 # $%2to &.'% # $%
&with a mean count of '.2% #
$%
'
$ 2& # $%
'
hil i h hi th TMC d f &% # $%
2
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
2/85
$% $ 2& # $% hil i h hi th TMC d f &% # $%
Results
Ta!le (") Total mould count in meat and meat product samples
Type of examined Total moulds count (TMC)
sampleMin Max Mean # SE
$ro%en meat $# $%2
2.*% # $%
2 # $%2
$.2% # $%2
Minced meat $# $%2
$.&% # $%'
$.*% # $%
*.%%# $%2
Li&er 2# $%2
'.*% # $%
'.& # $%
1.&% # $%
'idney $.2% # $%2
.%% # $%
2.2% # $%
2.1 # $%
Luncheon $# $%2
'.&% # $%'
.&% # $%
.% # $%
Sausage 2# $%2
&.'% # $%&
'.2% # $%'
$.2& # $%'
aachi .&% # $%2
.*% # $%&
&.2% # $%'
'.2$0 $%'
Mi i i M i 56 t d d
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
3/85
3 3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
4/85
Result
s
+*,*,*"* -re&alence of moulds in meat and meat product samples
From Table () and Fig (), it is e+ident that the most commonl
isolated mould species in the e0amined fro"en meat were Aspergillus
spp. (%7), followed bPenicilliumspp. (&%7),Alternariaspp. ('7),
Mucor spp.Cladosporium spp.Rhizopus spp.,Scopulariopsis spp., and
Curvularia spp. (27 for each) were rearl isolated. 8n minced meat
samples, Aspergillus spp. were the most common isolates ($%%7),
followed bPenicilliumspp. (2%7), Cladosporiumspp. (*7), then.,
Fusarium spp., Mucor spp. and Rhizopus spp. ('7for
each),Scopulariosis,spp.Alternariaspp. and Curvulariaspp. (27).
8n li+er samples the Aspergillus spp. predominated isolate in
('7) f ll d b P i illi ($*7) Cl d i (97)
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
5/85
3 ' 3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
6/85
Results
spp.,Fusariumspp. andRhizopusspp. were detected in ('7 for each).
Concerning sausage samples,Aspergillusspp. were at the top of
all isolated fungi (9%7), followed bPenicilliumspp. (&%7),
Alternaria spp. (%7), Cladosporium (2%7) and 5copulariopsis spp.
($27) whileMucorspp. ($%7),Rhizopusspp. andFusariumspp. (*7
each) were rarel isolated. -hereas, Curvularia spp. ('7) were
reco+ered at lowest freuenc.
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
7/85
Results
Ta!le (.) -re&alence of moulds in meat and meat product samples
Tpe of sample Fro"en Minced;i+er &% % &%?&% $%% ?&% ' 2& &% 1 9 '% 9% '% 9%
Penicillium spp. 2& &% $% 2% 9 $* 2% '% $1 9 $ ' 2& &%
Alternaria spp. 2 ' $ 2 % % ' 2 ' 9 2 ' $& %
Cladosporium spp. $ 2 * ' 9 * $' % % $% 2%
Curvularia spp. $ 2 $ 2.% % % % % $ 2 % % 2 '
Fusarium spp. % % 2 '.% $ 2 $ 2 2 ' 2 ' *
Mucor spp. $ 2 2 '.% 2 ' & $% * * $2 & $%
Rhizopus spp. $ 2 2 '.% $ 2 * ' 9 2 ' 2 *
Scopulariopsis spp. $ 2 $ 2.% $ 2 2 ' % % % % * $2
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
8/85
3 * 3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
9/85
Results
$ig* (.) -re&alence of mould species in meat and meat product samples3 3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
10/85
Results
+*,*,*.* $re/uency of identifiedAspergillusspecies isolated from
examined meat and meat products
From Table (') and Fig. ('), it is clear that the e0amined minced
meat and li+er samples had the highest total isolatedAspergillusspp..
The most common isolates ofAspergilliin fro"en meat wereA. flavus
(%7), A niger andA. candidus(2'7 for each), whileA. versicolor
was reco+ered from (97) and A. fumigatus from ('7). -hereas, A.
ochraceus andA. parasiticus were present in few of samples (27 for
each).
8n minced meat samples,A. flavuswas reco+ered from ('7),A.
niger from (%7), A. candidus aand A. ochraceus as (2%7), A.
parasiticus ('7)A. fumigatus,A. terreus were (27 for each).
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
11/85
Results
were reco+ered at lower freuenc (27 for each). n the other hand ,
in awawchi samples the most commonAspergillusspp. wasA.niger
(297), followed b A. flavus, (2'7), A. ochraceus, A. candidus, A.
fumigates,A. versicolor were (*7 for each). -hereas, the isolates of
A. parasiticus and A. terreus were reco+ered in rare rates (27 for
each). Considering the sausage samples, the most common
Aspergillusspp. was alsoA. flavus, ('7), followed b,A. candidus
(2*7),A.niger ($%7),A. ochraceus ,A. fumigatus (*7for each) and
A. terreus were reco+ered in low le+els (27).
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
12/85
Results
Ta!le (+) $re/uency of identifiedAspergillusspp* isolated from the examined meat and meat products
Tpe of sample Fro"en Minced;i+er
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
13/85
3 9% 3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
14/85
Results
$ig* (+) $re/uency of identifiedAspergillusspp* isolated from the examined meat and meat products3 9$3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
15/85
Result
s
4.1.2. Mycological examination of milk and milk products
4.1.2.1. Total mould count of the examined in milk and milk
product samples
As shown in Table (&) and Fig (&), it was noticed that the highesttotal mould count was obtained from the Fresh amietta cheese
samples, followed b Fresh
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
16/85
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
17/85
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
18/85
Results
+*,*"*"* -re&alence of moulds in milk and milk products
From Table (*) and Fig (*), genera were isolated from e0amined
raw mil/ represents b genusAspergillus. (%7), followed b
Penicillium spp. (2'7), Alternaria spp. ('7), Mucor spp.
Cladosporium spp., Scopulariopsis spp. (27for each). Also, in
oghurt samples, Aspergillus spp. were the most common isolates
(*7), followed bPenicilliumspp. (2%7), Cladosporiumspp. (*7),
Mucor spp and!otr"otrichumspp.('7 for each) thenAlternariaspp,
Scopulariosis spp. (27for each).
8n hard cheese samples theAspergillusspp. were also the most
common isolates (97) followed b Penicillium spp. (%7), Mucor
spp. (*7),!otr"otrichum spp.('7), both of Cladosporiumspp. and
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
19/85
Results
Ta!le (1) -re&alence of moulds in milk and milk product samples
Tpe of sample Baw mil/ oghurt ard cheeseFresh
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
20/85
3 9& 3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
21/85
Results
$ig* (1) -re&alence of moulds in milk and milk products
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
22/85
3 9* 3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
23/85
Results
+*,*"*.* $re/uency of identifiedAspergillusspecies isolated from
examined milk and milk product samples
From Table () and Fig (), it is clear that the e0amined mil/ and
mil/ product samples were predominated, respecti+el Aspergillus
spp.. The most common isolated spp.ofAspergillusfrom raw mil/ was
A. flavus(2%7)A. niger($*7),A. candidus (#$),A. fumigatus
('7) and lastl b both. A. ochraceusandA. parasiticuswere (27 for
each). 8n oghurt samples, A. nigerwere the main isolates (2'7),
followed bA. flavus, ($97) andA. fumigatus(27).
8n hard cheese samples,A. nigerwas isolated at rate of (%7),
A. flavus at ($%7),A. ochraceus at ('7),A. parasiticus at (27).
8n Fresh
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
24/85
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
25/85
Results
$ig (2) $re/uency of identifiedAspergillusspp* isolated from the examined milk and milk product samples3 913
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
26/85
Results
-hoto (,) A. flavus on S34 agar -hoto (") Microscopy of A. flavus
shoing yello green surface shoing radiated head5 !iseriate
colour and granular consistency* phialide and rounded &esicle*
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
27/85
Results
-h
o
t
o
n
S
3
4
i
t
h
!
u
f
f
o
r
c
e
c
o
l
o
u
r
*
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
28/85
i
u
m
s
p
e
ci
e
s
on
S
3
t
u
re
5
h
it
e
s
u
rf
a
c
e
e
n
ts
o
n
th
e
c
e
nt
e
r
*
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
29/85
-h
o
t
o
(
1
.
o
c
h
r
a
c
e
u
s
s
h
o
i
n
g
h
e
a
d
a
n
d
l
a
r
g
e
s
e
p
t
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
30/85
-h
o
t
o
F
us
a
r
i
um
s
p
ec
i
e
s
c
s
le
n
d
e
r5
m
u
l
ti
c
e
l
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
31/85
d
mi
c
r
o
co
n
i
d
ia
*
3
1$
3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
32/85
Results
-hoto (,8)P. citrinumon S34 shoing
Rhizopus species shoing long5 deep !luish green surface colour and
!ranched sporangio6phores &el&ety texture*
and terminate ith rhi%oids*
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
33/85
Results
4.2. 9TS !ased -CR for differentiation 4spergillus species from
the other mem!er of genera
The molecular diagnosis for the critical mcoto0igenic species
(A. flavus,A. parasiticus) is considered, with utili"ing uniue internal
transcribed spacer (8T53$) regions for genus and species3specific
detection for identifingAspergillusspecies producing aflato0in based
on oligonucleotides. 6le+en isolates of identified Aspergillus species
that isolated from fro"en meat, li+er, /idne, hawawchi, sausage,
cheese, fresh /ariesh cheese, oghurt and raw mil/ were selected for
genotpic identification and amplified product was obtained at $1&bp
as shown in photo ($$).
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
34/85
Results
4.3. Screening of aflatoxin production from resistant strains of A.
flavus andA. parasiticus on Coco nut agar media (C4M)
For determination of aflato0in production based on presence or
absence of fluorescence on the re+erse side of the colonies was
determined b e0posing the petri dishes to u.+ (*& nm) and e0pressed
as positi+e (blue fluorescence) or negati+e as re+ealed in photos
($2D$) respecti+el.
on shoing !lue
fluorescence onre&erse side of
the plate after
exposure to u*&*
rays*
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
35/85
Result
s
4.4. 3etection of potency of antifungal drugs againstA. flavusand
A. parasiticus isolates:
4.4.1. 3etection of potency of antifungal drugs aganist A. flavus
and A. parasiticus isolated from meat and its products
+*+*,*,* -otency of
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
36/85
3 1& 3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
37/85
Result
s
isolates were resistant. Two out of fi+e ofA.parasiticuswas inhibited
b ben"oic acid at same concentration but ?& isolates were resistant.
8n luncheon sample, the growth of *?$& ofA.flavusisolates was
inhibited b ben"oic acid at concentration of .%% Eg?ml. while theremaider is resistant. A.parasiticusisolates were resistant to the same
antifungal agent.
5ausage sample, the growth of &?$ A. flavus isolates were
inhibited b ben"oic acid at concentration of .%% Eg?ml. A.
parasiticus isolate was resistant.
awawchi sample showed that &?$2 A. flavus isolates were
inhibited b ben"oic acid at concentration of Eg?ml .while ?$2 of the
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
38/85
3 1* 3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
39/85
Ta!le (7) -otency of !en%oic acid against fungi isolated from meat an
=umber of sensiti+e and resistant strains at
5ource ofTested strains numbers
tested antifungal
isolation %.& %.& $.%
5 B 5 B 5 B
Fro"en meat Aspergillus flavus ($&) 3 $ 3 $& $2
Aspergillus parasiticus ($) 3 $ 3 $ 3 $
Minced meat Aspergillus flavus ($) 3 $ 3 $ 3 $
Aspergillus parasiticus (2) 3 2 3 2 3 2
;i+er Aspergillus flavus ($*) 3 $* 3 $* 2 $'
Aspergillus parasiticus () 3 3 $ 2
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
40/85
;i+er Aspergillus flavus ($*) 1 $% * $$ &
Aspergillus parasiticus () $ 2 2 $ $ 2
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
41/85
Results
Ta!le (,8) -otency of propionic acid against fungi isolated from meat and its product
=umber of sensiti+e and resistant strains at different concentrations of
5ource of Tested strains numbers tested antifungalsisolation %.& %.& $.% 2.% .%
5 B 5 B 5 B 5 B 5 B
Fro"en meat Aspergillus flavus ($&) 9 1 * 1 * $& 3 $& 3
Aspergillus parasiticus ($) 3 $ $ 3 $ 3 $ 3 $ 3
Minced meat Aspergillus flavus ($) $% $$ * $2 & $ 3 $ 3
Aspergillus parasiticus (2) $ $ 2 6 2 3 2 3 2 3
;i+er Aspergillus flavus ($*) ' $2 1 1 $* 3 $* 3
Aspergillus parasiticus () $ 2 3 3 3 3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
42/85
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
43/85
Ta!le (,,) -otency of sor!ic acid against fungi isolated from milk a
=umber of sensiti+e and resistant strains
5ource ofTested strains numbers
tested antifung
isolation %.& %.& $.%
5 B 5 B 5 B
Fro"en meat Aspergillus flavus ($%) 3 $% 3 $% ' *
Aspergillus parasiticus ($) 3 $ 3 $ $ 3
oughurt Aspergillus flavus (1) ' & * 9 $
Aspergillus parasiticus ($) % $ % $ % $
,ard cheese Aspergillus flavus (&) 2 2 2
Aspergillus parasiticus ($) 3 $ 3 $ $ 3
Fresh /aresh Aspergillus flavus ($$) 9 9 1 2
Aspergillus parasiticus ($) 3 $ 3 $ $ 3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
44/85
Ta!le (,") -otency of !en%oic acid against fungi isolated from milkt
=umber of sensiti+e and resistant strains
5ource ofTested strains numbers
tested antifung
isolation %.& %.& $.%
5 B 5 B 5 B
Fro"en meat Aspergillus flavus ($%) ' * ' * * '
Aspergillus parasiticus ($) 3 $ 3 $ 3 $
oughurt Aspergillus flavus (1) ' & ' & ' &
Aspergillus parasiticus ($) 3 $ 3 $ 3 $
,ard cheese Aspergillus flavus (&) 2 2 2
Aspergillus parasiticus ($) 3 $ 3 $ 3 $
Fresh /aresh Aspergillus flavus ($$) & * & * * &
Aspergillus parasiticus ($) 3 $ 3 $ 3 $
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
45/85
Ta!le (,.) -otency of propionic acid against fungi isolated from milk a
=umber of sensiti+e and resistant strains
5ource ofTested strains numbers
tested antifung
isolation %.& %.& $.%
5 B 5 B 5 BFro"en meat Aspergillus flavus ($%) 2 9 ' *
Aspergillus parasiticus ($) 3 $ 3 $ 3 $
oughurt Aspergillus flavus (1) ' & ' & & '
Aspergillus parasiticus ($) 3 $ 3 $ 3 $
,ard cheese Aspergillus flavus (&) 2 ' $ ' $
Aspergillus parasiticus ($) 3 $ 3 $ 3 $
Fresh /aresh Aspergillus flavus ($$) & * & * * &
Aspergillus parasiticus ($) 3 $ 3 $ 3 $
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
46/85
Results
+*0* -re&alence of Resistant strains of A.flavus and A.
parasiticus for all tested antifungals (Sor!ic5
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
47/85
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
48/85
Results
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
49/85
Result
s
+*0*"* -re&alence of Resistant strains of A. flavus and
A.parasiticus for all tested antifungals (Sor!ic5
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
50/85
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
51/85
Results
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
52/85
Result
s
4.6. 4flatoxins detection from resistant strains ofA. flavusand
A. parasiticus isolated from meat and milk and their
products samples (ug= ,888 ml) (pp!)*
+*1*,* 4flatoxins detection from resistant strains ofA. flavusand
A. parasiticus isolated from meat and meat product samples
(ug= ,888 ml) (pp!)*
The aflato0ins production b antifungal resistant isolates were
recorded as in Table ($*) and Fig. ($%).
The resistant isolates ofA. flavus(9.&7) andA. parasiticus
($%%7) that reco+ered from fro"en meat produced significant le+els of
Aflato0ins. The le+els of produced Aflato0ins b A. flavus were
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
53/85
Result
s
The results of AF produced b A. flavus (9.7) and A.
parasiticus ($%%7) from /idne thatA. flavusproduce AF@$ at range
of (%.%3$&.% ppb), and (%.%32%.%ppb) for AF@2, A. parasiticus
produced AFs at le+els of ($2.% ppb) for AF@$ and (%.% ppb) for
AF@2.
8n luncheon samples, the isolates ofA. flavus(*2.&.&7) produced
le+els of AFs ranged from ($232'.% ppb) for AF@$, and (%3 2%.%ppb)
for AF@2 .A. parasiticuswas not Contrar poroduce.
Table ($), sausage samples, the showed AF produced b the
isolated A. flavus (9$.97) and A. parasiticus (%7) in a significant
le+els. 8t were ranged from (1.&32&.% ppb) for AF@$, and (%32.% ppb)
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
54/85
Result
s
Ta!le (,1) 4flatoxins detection from resistant strains of A. flavusandA. parasiticusisolated from meat and meatproduct samples (>g= ,888 ml) (pp!)
5ource of Total =o.Aflato0in I+e Juantitati+e detection of aflato0ins
5trains samples (Eg?$%%% ml) (ppm)isolation of isolates
=o 7 @$ @2 G$ G2Fro"en meat A. flavus 9 9.&7 .&3**.% $%.&3 % %
A. parasiticus $ $ $%%7 '.% 2 %3' %32*Total 1 9 99.9
Minced meat A. flavus $% 9 9%7 %3$ %322 % %A. parasiticus % % % % % %3 %3$*
Total $% 9 9%7
;i+er A. flavus 1 .7 %3 %3* % %A. parasiticus $ $ $%%.%7 && 22 %3 %3&
Total $% 9 9%7
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
55/85
3 $$2 3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
56/85
Results
$ig (,8) -re&alence and le&els of aflatoxins produced !yA. flavusandA. parasiticusthat isolated from examined
meat and meat product samples (>g=,888 ml) (ppm)
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
57/85
3 $$ 3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
58/85
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
59/85
Result
s
Ta!le (,2) 4flatoxins detection from resistant strains of A. flavusandA. parasiticusisolated from milk and milk
product samples (ug= ,888 ml) (pp!)
Aflato0in I+eJuantitati+e detection of
Total =o. samples5ource of isolation 5trains aflato0ins (Eg?$%%% ml) (ppm)
of isolates=o 7
@$ @2 G$ G2
Baw mil/ A. flavus 2 $ &%7 %3&* %3$& %3% %3%
A. parasiticus % %
Total 2 $ &%7
oghurt A. flavus ' ' $%%7 23$&.& $.&39.& %3% %3%
A. parasiticus % %
Total ' ' $%%7
ard cheese A. flavus 2 $ &%7 %32& %3$% %
A. parasiticus % %
Total 2 $ &%7
Fresh
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
60/85
3 $$& 3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
61/85
Results
$ig (,,) -re&alence and le&els of aflatoxins produced !yA. flavusandA. parasiticusthat isolated from examined
milk and milk product samples (>g=,888 ml) (ppm)
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
62/85
3 $$* 3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
63/85
Result
s
4.7. Statistical analysis of aflatoxin residues (pp!) detected in
examined meat and meat product samples
As demonstrated in Table ($9) and Fig. ($2), the highest mean
+alues of aflato0in residues (Eg?/g), @$, @2, G$ and G2 were
detected in the /idne samples ($2.* $.91, 1.9' $.*, &.9
$.* and *.9' $.1, respecti+el), followed b the li+er samples
($.9$ $.1*, .2* %.12, 2.&$ %.* and $.* %.9), luncheon
samples (.$ $.&, .&1 $.$2, &.2' $.$2 and *. $.'1),
hawawchi samples ($$.% 2.', 2.2& %.&2, 2.&' %.11 and
2.&* %.2), minced meat samples (.*2 %.99, .'% %.92, '.2'
%.9&, 2.9 %.*%) fro"en meat samples which had the lowest
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
64/85
Results
Ta!le (,7): 5tatistical analsis of aflato0in residues (ppb) detected in e0amined meat and meat product samples (n42%).
Tpes of @$ @2 G$ G2aflato0ins
Tpe ofMin Ma0 Mean 56 Min Ma0 Mean 56 Min Ma0 Mean 56 Min Ma0 Mean 56
e0aminedsample
Fro"en meat $.2 1.2& '.9% %.91 %% 22 &.% 2.$ % *.% $.$ %.*% % % % %
Minced meat %.% .& .*2 %.99 %.% . .'% %.92 %.% 9.$ '.2' %.9& %.% &.& 2.9 %.*%
;i+er % 2% $.9$ $.1* % *.2& .2* %.*2 % 2.&$ %.* % .&% $.* %.9
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
65/85
Results
$ig (,") Statistical analytical results of &arious aflatoxin residues (pp!) detected examined meat and meat
product samples (n?,0)*
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
66/85
3 $$1 3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
67/85
Results
4.8. Statistical analytical results of total (
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
68/85
Results
$ig (,.) Statistical analytical results of total aflatoxin residues (pp!) detected in positi&e examined meat andmeat products samples
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
69/85
3 $2$ 3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
70/85
Result
s
4.9. Statistical analysis of aflatoxin residues (pp!) detected in
examined milk and milk product samples
The obtained results in Table (2%) and Fig. ($') showed the
residues of AFs in mil/ and mil/ product. -here the highest mean
+alues of aflato0in residues (Eg?/g), M$, @$, @2, G$and G2were
detected in the hard cheese samples (&.' $.2, 9. $.1, $.' $.'
, %.% and %.%, respecti+el), followed b the fresh damietta cheese
samples ('.* $.*, *.' %.**, $.% $.% %.% and %.%), oghurt
samples ($. $.%, 2. $.', %.9 %.&& %.% and %.%), raw mil/
samples ('.1 $.&&, %.%, %.%, %.% and %.%), fresh /areish cheese
samples (2.1 $.%1, %.%, %.%, %.% and %.%), respecti+el.
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
71/85
Results
Ta!le ("8) Statistical analysis of aflatoxin residues (pp!) detected in examined milk and milk product samples
(n?"8)
Types of M1 B1 B2 G1 G2aflatoxins
Type ofexamined Min Max Mean SE Min. Max. Mean SE Min. Max. Mean SE Min. Max. Mean SE Min. Max. Mean SEsample
Raw milk 0 13 4.39 1 .55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yogh!t 0 6.5 1.34 1 .06 0 7.5 2.31 1.47 0 2 .9 0.86 0.55 0 0 0 0 0 3/.75 0 .6 2 0 .62
"a!d #heese 0 10 .9 5 .4 4 1.23 0 17.5 8.31 1.91 0 14 1.4 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
$!esh %a!eish0 6.7 2.09 1 .09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
#heese
$!esh &amietta0 9.2 4.6 1.06 0 15 6.4 0.66 0 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
#heese
Min 4 minimu Ma0 4 ma0imum 56 4 standard error Eg?/g 4 ppb %4 not detected
3 $2 3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
72/85
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
73/85
Results
$ig (,+) Statistical analytical results of &arious aflatoxin residues (pp!) detected in positi&e examined milk and
milk product samples (n?,0)
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
74/85
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
75/85
Results
+*,8* Statistical analytical results of total aflatoxin residues (pp!)detected in examined milk and milk product samples
As illustrated in in Table (2$)and fig ($&), the highest mean
+alues of total aflato0in residues (Eg?/g) were detected in hard cheese
samples ($.1* .21), followed b fresh damietta cheese samples
(1.'$ 2.*), oghurt samples( &.1 $.1), raw mil/ ('.1 $.&&)
and the lower le+els obser+ed in fresh /areish cheese samples (.%
2.2$).
Ta!le (",) Statistical analysis of aflatoxin residues (pp!) detected in
examined milk and milk product samples (n?"8)
Tpes of aflato0ins Aflato0in (ppb)
Tpe of e0amined sample Min Ma0 Mean 56
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
76/85
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
77/85
Result
s
+*,,* Comparison !eteen the total aflatoxins residues detected
in examined samples of meat and meat products and the
permissi!le limits of AB (,0 pp!) and $4B and $34 ("8
pp!)*
From table (22) and Fig. ($*), it is clear that the aflato0in
uantities detected in samples of meat and its products e0ceeds the
aflato0in permissible limits.
8n fro"en meat, 2&7 of the samples showed higher le+els ofaflato0ins than the permissible limits recommended b (-)
(K$&ppb) and $%7 of the samples contained aflato0ins more than the
permissible limits of (K2%ppb) (FADFA)
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
78/85
3 $2 3
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
79/85
Results
of samples contained aflato0ins more than the permissible limits of 2%ppb (FA).
8n sausage samples showed residues of aflato0ins in &7 of
samples more than the permissible limits of $& ppb (-) and %7
of samples contained aflato0ins more than the permissible limits of 2%
ppb (FA).
8n hawawchi showed also aflato0ins residues in &7 of samples
more than the permissible limits of $& ppb (-) and %7 of
samples contained aflato0ins more than the permissible limits of 2%
ppb (FA).
Therefore, the high incidence of reected samples which unfit for
consumption was detected in samples of sausage (&7) followed b,
Results
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
80/85
Results
Ta!le ("") Comparison !eteen the total aflatoxin residues detected in examined samples of meat and meat
products and recommended permissi!le limits of AB (,0 pp!) and $4B and $34 ("8 pp!)
Tpe of e0amined =o. of e0amined =o. of positi+e5amples contained aflato0ins 5amples contained aflato0ins
K $& ppb (-,) K 2% ppb (FA) D FAsample samples samples
=o. 7 =o. 7
Fro"en meat 2% $$ & 2& 2 $%
Minced meat 2% $& & ' 2%
;i+er 2% $$ 9 '% & &%
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
81/85
Results
$ig (,1) Comparison !eteen the total aflatoxins residues detected in positi&e examined samples of meat and
meat products and recommended permissi!le limits of AB (,0 pp!) and $4B $34 ("8 pp!)*
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
82/85
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
83/85
Results
+*,"* Comparison !eteen the total aflatoxins residues detectedin examined samples of milk and milk proucts and
recommended permissi!le limits of the European Community
(EC) limit (8*0 ug=kg for all 4$s and 4$M,*)5 AB (,0 pp!)
and $4B and $34 ("8 pp!)*
8n Table (2), the samples of mil/ and mil/ products unfit for
consumption occording to the 6uropean Communit. -here, their AF
content more than %.& ppb, the high rate of reected samples detected
in domietta cheese (9%7), hard cheese (*%7), raw mil/ (&%7), fresh/ariesh cheese (%7) and the lowest incidence detected in $%7 of
oghurt samples.
Comparing ower results to the limits of FA and FA ($&32%
Results
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
84/85
Results
Ta!le (".) Comparison !eteen the total aflatoxins residues detected in examined samples of milk and milk
proucts and recommended permissi!le limits of the European Community (EC) limit as tightened further
to 0 ug=kg to esta!lish limit for aflatoxin M,at le&el of 8*80 ug=kg*5 AB (,0 pp!) and $4B and $34 ("8pp!)
5amples contained aflato0in 5amples contained aflato0insTpe of e0amined =o. of e0amined =o. of positi+e
M$ in mil/ K %.& ppb (6C) K $&32% ppb (FA) and FAsample samples samples
=o. 7 =o. 7
Baw mil/ 2% 2% $% &%7 % %
oghurt 2% ' 2 $% % %
ard cheese 2% $& $2 *% $% &%
Fresh
8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014
85/85
Results
Ta!le ("+) Comparison of different methods for detection of aflatoxin produced !y A. flavusandA. parasiticus
isolated from meat5 milk and their products
Code Source ofC4M
Strain flourescence TLC $luorometer;o* isolation
& A. parasiticus Minced meat I I @$D@2DG$DG2 9% (>g=,88ml
li/uid media)
9 A. parasiticus ;i+er I I @$D@2DG$DG2 *%
A. parasiticus ;i+er I I @$D@2 %
1 A. flavus awawchi I I @$D@2 $.&
$* A. flavus cheese I I @$ $&
$$ A. flavus